469,326 Members | 1,555 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Opinion: Do web standards matter?

Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.

Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".

So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?

P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ]

http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250 9102
c.thornquist wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:e3***************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Oh, Firefox is less than 5MB.


My Add/Remove programs says Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is 15.80MB.
Can't remember where FF was saving to, but I'll find it.


That is the installed/expanded size of the program, not the download
file size. My Win2K installation says 15.6MB.

Search for: Firefox Setup 1.0.2.exe (yeah, with spaces)

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #201
Travis Newbury wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width. A mimimum
width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any reasonably large
images. A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.


And if only IE had thought about this... Maybe with the next version...


I don't necessarily mean the CSS "max-width" and "min-width" properties,
though it certainly would be handy if IE/win supported those.

There are other ways impose a minimum and maximum width on a design. An
example of an imposed miminum width (though one that I would by no means
recommend) would be:

<table>
<tr>
<td>
<h1>
<img src="header" alt="My Site" width=600 height=80>
</h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<!-- Content goes here. -->
</td>
</tr>
</table>

The width of the graphic stops the table from shrinking to less than
600px, but there is nothing to stop it growing to more than 600px.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./warm_jets/future_signs/07_autopia.ogg

Jul 24 '05 #202

"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa***************************@tobyinkster.co. uk...
c.thornquist wrote:
Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.


A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide. Taking account of a scroll
bar and a little margin around the edge of the page, it's probably
slightly under 10", but let's call it ten as it's an easier calculation.


An example is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

The text is just over a foot across in my 19" monitor at 1024x768.
Statistically, people are moving toward, not away from, larger monitors.
Just as they are moving toward 1024x768, from 800x600. And, since the
majority of visitors do not want to have to make any adjustments, it makes
sense to keep the text at a reasonable width.

It's not a trivial matter. I read constantly on the WWW and find it tiresome
to have to read such long blocks of text. Also, I need glasses for reading,
yet even without my glasses, I find the text at w3.org's site too large.
Most of us read a newspaper daily. And books. And look up numbers in phone
books occasionally. We're accustomed to a much smaller font & more narrow
blocks of text. (W3.org's font size looks typical of a childrens book.) Why
should websites be so different?

Newspaper publishers don't provide several versions of the daily paper to
all customers routinely. It would cost too much. Likewise, I'm not paid
enough to build multiple versions of the same website for different
resolutions & monitor sizes. Most people purchase eyeglasses if they have
trouble reading their newspaper or phone book.

I want my sites to be accessible, comfortable to read, easy to navigate and
visually appealing. Common sense dictates, to me, that we have to draw the
line somewhere.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #203

"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@tobyinkster.co .uk...
Travis Newbury wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
<snip>
There are other ways impose a minimum and maximum width on a design. An
example of an imposed miminum width (though one that I would by no means
recommend) would be: <snip> The width of the graphic stops the table from shrinking to less than
600px, but there is nothing to stop it growing to more than 600px.


What if your top header or banner just won't work visually with anything
other than its width, say 650 pixels? Does CSS allow you to to keep that
width throughout the page w/o using tables?

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #204
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
The text is just over a foot across in my 19" monitor at 1024x768.
Statistically, people are moving toward, not away from, larger
monitors.
Statistically, presentation situations for web pages are getting *more
diverse*. That's the chief lesson we have to take from these
discussions, IMHO.

Another lesson is that people are moving from CRTs to panels - and the
latter have an inherent resolution in pixels. Getting the kind of
resolution that we were already using with CRTs years ago (1600x1200
would not be uncommon) is prohibitively expensive with panels, so some
of our users are taking a hit on that - just the opposite of what you
claimed.
Just as they are moving toward 1024x768, from 800x600. And, since
the majority of visitors do not want to have to make any
adjustments, it makes sense to keep the text at a reasonable width.
If you believe that the majority of users don't want to make any
adjustments, they'll presumably be working at the browser's
installation default window size.
I want my sites to be accessible, comfortable to read, easy to
navigate and visually appealing. Common sense dictates, to me, that
we have to draw the line somewhere.


Indeed, and I draw that line at people who will insist on making an
absurd choice and then complaining about the consequences. Those who
use a handheld display, or who have sight impairment, or who have
browsing requirements which are unusual in other ways, might not have
much choice in the matter. But those who can casually tell us how
easy it is to change from the installation default display (a
reasonably-sized window) to something else (fullscreen display) surely
cannot tell us that it's impossibly hard to change back again when the
need arises. I'm happy to specify a max-width, as I already said; but
I'm not prepared to show much sympathy for those who need max-width
but choose a browser without it.

Jul 24 '05 #205
Ángel wrote:
In alt.html Uncle Pirate <st**@surecann.com> wrote:
That's it, I beleive. I know that I am no designer. So, in the
upcoming redesign of the large website I manage (http://alamo.nmsu.edu),
the design will be created by a committee consisting of people from our

Please do not allow the person who had the idea of adding the animated
gif behind the address to join in to the committee :-)


Oh, he'll be on the committee (me), but input will be offset by some
people from the art department. :) I freely admit, I am a developer,
not a designer. I intend to limit my input to technical details this time.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #206

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
<snip> But those who can casually tell us how
easy it is to change from the installation default display (a
reasonably-sized window) to something else (fullscreen display) surely
cannot tell us that it's impossibly hard to change back again when the
need arises. I'm happy to specify a max-width, as I already said; but
I'm not prepared to show much sympathy for those who need max-width
but choose a browser without it.


I'm talking about back & forth...back & forth. You can view my sites just
fine in the browsers' reasonable, as you call it, default. That's not the
case with websites in which the text spreads across 100% of the monitor.
Luckily, for me, most sites don't fill my screen with text at 100% width.

Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%? I just asked
my teenagers & they said "always" 100%. There's probably research somewhere
about it.

Maybe you don't understand the desire to open to 100% because it doesn't fit
the way you use your computer. But as site builders we have to think of what
most people do.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #207

"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann.com> wrote in message
news:42********@nntp.zianet.com...
Ángel wrote:
In alt.html Uncle Pirate <st**@surecann.com> wrote:


Oh, he'll be on the committee (me), but input will be offset by some
people from the art department. :) I freely admit, I am a developer, not
a designer. I intend to limit my input to technical details this time.


The bottom right of all images in the slideshow are missing for me in IE.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #208
c.thornquist wrote:

An example is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

(W3.org's font size looks typical of a childrens book.)


That's funny, I find both the font family and size to be absolutely
perfect, since I'm getting my own browser default for both. :-)

If you don't like how your browser default font looks, then change it.
Just don't complain about it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #209
c.thornquist wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%? I just
asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%. There's probably research
somewhere about it.


As it happens, I did a survey on this 13 months ago, but never published
the results. I would guess they are still roughly valid.

Will add them to my site now and post a link when done.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #210
c.thornquist wrote:
Most of us read a newspaper daily. And books. And look up numbers in
phone books occasionally. We're accustomed to a much smaller font & more
narrow blocks of text. (W3.org's font size looks typical of a childrens
book.) Why should websites be so different?
Each medium has its own limitations.

One limitation of print media is that once something has been printed, it
is impossible to resize the font to make it easier to read. This is a
*weakness* of the medium, but unfortunately it's one that we have to
accept as it's caused by the physical properties of the materials involved.

The Web does not suffer from this weakness, so why try to impose the
weakness artificially?
Newspaper publishers don't provide several versions of the daily paper
to all customers routinely. It would cost too much.
For a while, The Independent and The Times published their papers in both
broadsheet and tabloid formats, but they've stopped doing that more
recently.

Many books are published in large print editions, translations, braille
editions, "talking books", hardback, softback...
Likewise, I'm not paid enough to build multiple versions of the same
website for different resolutions & monitor sizes.


But here's a point -- it is **easier** to build a site that scales to
different browser canvas areas and font sizes than it is to build a fixed
size website.

This is because HTML is naturally flexible -- it is flexible by default.
You have to make an explicit effort to remove this flexibility (e.g.
explicitly defining widths and/or absolute font sizes).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #211
Toby Inkster wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%? I just
asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%. There's probably research
somewhere about it. As it happens, I did a survey on this 13 months ago, but never published
the results. I would guess they are still roughly valid.


They will probably still be valid for your site. But probably not for mine.
Will add them to my site now and post a link when done.


Thanks, it will be interesting to see the trend.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #212
c.thornquist wrote:
The bottom right of all images in the slideshow are missing for me in IE.


There are two possibles you might be talking about.

The image at top right (sometimes animated switching images, sometimes
single image) is placed as a background to an overlaid mostly
transparant image shaping into the state of New Mexico.

The images placed as list-style-image is incorrectly chopping the image
off, they are also the shape of NM so look like the lower right corner
is chopped off too. In this case, I guess it's one of the IE bugs as
it's displayed fine in other browsers.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #213
c.thornquist wrote:

You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL


Oh no, I'm serious. I'm not suggesting remote controls, just saying that
whoever designed & built them realized that people don't want to have to
make adjustments.

You're funny! I like you.
Remote controls were invented because people did not want to walk to
the TV and back to set the volume. Have you looked at a typical remote
control? Zowie! Talk about a lot of adjustments! They make browsers look
simple.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 24 '05 #214
Travis Newbury wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%? I just
asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%. There's probably
research somewhere about it.


As it happens, I did a survey on this 13 months ago, but never
published the results. I would guess they are still roughly valid.


They will probably still be valid for your site. But probably not for
mine.


What makes you think I performed the survey on my own site? (I didn't.)

But the results are on my own site. :-)
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/browser-sizes

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #215
c.thornquist wrote:
What if your top header or banner just won't work visually with anything
other than its width, say 650 pixels? Does CSS allow you to to keep that
width throughout the page w/o using tables?


Of course:

BODY { width:650px }

But that's the sort of inflexible design decision I'm arguing *against*.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #216
Toby Inkster wrote:
Travis Newbury wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%?
I just asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%. There's
probably research somewhere about it.

As it happens, I did a survey on this 13 months ago, but never
published the results. I would guess they are still roughly
valid.


They will probably still be valid for your site. But probably
not for mine.


What makes you think I performed the survey on my own site? (I
didn't.)

But the results are on my own site. :-)
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/browser-sizes


Nicely done, Toby. Conclusions are about what I expected to see.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #217
Jim Moe wrote:
Remote controls were invented because people did not want to walk to
the TV and back to set the volume.


When you're up by the TV, adjusting the volume it seems too loud, when
you're waaaay back over on your couch, it seems too quiet.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #218
Jim Moe wrote:
You're funny! I like you.
Remote controls were invented because people did not want to walk to
the TV and back to set the volume. Have you looked at a typical remote
control? Zowie! Talk about a lot of adjustments! They make browsers look
simple.


I remember my first TV with a remote control. It had 1 buttons on it.
Click it once, the tv turned on. If you kept on clicking the channel
would change up to 13 times, then it would turn the tv off again. The
entire thing was mechanical. It produced a loud "click" which was
picked up by the TV and caused it to mechanically change the tuner.

That's what remotes were when they first came out. Hardly complicated.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #219
Toby Inkster wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%? I just
asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%. There's probably
research somewhere about it.

As it happens, I did a survey on this 13 months ago, but never
published the results. I would guess they are still roughly valid.


They will probably still be valid for your site. But probably not for
mine.

What makes you think I performed the survey on my own site? (I didn't.)


Well the line "I did a survey on this 13 months ago" was the part that
made me thing that you did the survey. The part "But never published
the results" implies it was for your personal site.

Either way, the results would be invalid for my site anyway

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #220

"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa***************************@tobyinkster.co. uk...
c.thornquist wrote:
What if your top header or banner just won't work visually with anything
other than its width, say 650 pixels? Does CSS allow you to to keep that
width throughout the page w/o using tables?


Of course:

BODY { width:650px }

But that's the sort of inflexible design decision I'm arguing *against*.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact


It's not CSS, I'm opposed to. As I've said earlier, CSS makes sense. It's
the insistence upon 100% width and using relative values (though I'm
dismayed to discover IE doesn't override my fixed font sizes in "style."

I'm sure my views stem from having to build sites for x amount of dollars.
I've attempted flexible sites in the past & they take too long to build. If
they are to look right in multiple browsers and resolutions, that is. But I
don't generally build sites which contain much text on the opening page. If
I did, I could fill the front page with "stuff." My sites are for small
business owners (IE a bakery, car dealership, bridal shop, restaurants,
etc.), so the front page is w/o much text. That said, how do you keep your
row of text links from spreading to 100% width?

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #221
c.thornquist wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%?
I certainly don't think that. Personally, I keep my browser window at
~900px wide which is about 70% of my 1280Ă—1024 screen, and at least two
others in my family don't maximise browser windows either.
I just asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%.
Well, there's great population sample! Do you really think your
teenagers equate to most people? Add my result to the group (I'll take
a guess and say your sample was 2 teenagers plus yourself – exact
numbers aren't important), and that makes it 50% of the population that
don't keep browsers open to 100% :-).
There's probably research somewhere about it.


Does it really matter what the stats are for this? Screen sizes and
resolutions vary a great deal anyway, from 640Ă—480 to 1600Ă—1200 and
higher, and that's just for desktops. Since it's the viewport size that
matters, not the screen size, whether or not users keep the browser
maximised or not is meaningless.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 24 '05 #222
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I just asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%.

Well, there's great population sample! Do you really think your
teenagers equate to most people?


Most people? Probably not. Most "visitors", well depending on the
site, maybe so. Why is it so hard for some to see that something that
is good for one site may or may not be good for another. The rules
should be guidelines that guide the developer uses when developing a
site. But, you have to look at your likely (not all possible) visitors
and design around what THEY want. Because a site that sticks to the
"rules", just because they are rules, and ignores what the likely
visitors want, is doomed to failure.

But they can happily head into bankruptcy court knowing they followed
the rules...

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #223
Travis Newbury wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I just asked my teenagers & they said "always" 100%.
Well, there's great population sample! Do you really think your
teenagers equate to most people?


Most people? Probably not. Most "visitors", well depending on the
site, maybe so.


How can you possibly know this kind of information about your visitors,
as opposed to people in general; and what kind of site's target audience
(based on its content) would target a group of user's with specific
browser window size preferences?
The rules should be guidelines that guide the developer uses when
developing a site.
Yes, I agree with that.
But, you have to look at your likely (not all possible) visitors
and design around what THEY want.


Yes. But, again, how can you possibly determine users' browser window
preferences based on a site's target audience?

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 24 '05 #224
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Most people? Probably not. Most "visitors", well depending on the
site, maybe so.

How can you possibly know this kind of information about your visitors,
as opposed to people in general; and what kind of site's target audience
(based on its content) would target a group of user's with specific
browser window size preferences?


Gee, I don't know. Let me think... Ask?

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #225
Travis Newbury wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Most people? Probably not. Most "visitors", well depending on the
site, maybe so.


How can you possibly know this kind of information about your
visitors, as opposed to people in general; and what kind of site's
target audience (based on its content) would target a group of user's
with specific browser window size preferences?


Gee, I don't know. Let me think... Ask?


Right! And how many people would waste their time conducting a survey
for each and every site, when they could more easily create a flexible
site layout that doesn't depend on specific browser window preferences.

However, you didn't answer the second question:
... and what kind of site's target audience (based on its content)
would target a group of user's with specific browser window size
preferences?

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 24 '05 #226
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Travis Newbury wrote:
Gee, I don't know. Let me think... Ask?


So, who are you going to ask, and what question are you going to ask
them? Have you any idea what proportion of webnauts answer surveys,
and just how typical those are of the ones who don't answer? Now, as
to the question:

"With what will you be browsing my new web site next year when my site
is fully up and running? And how will that change over the following
6-12 months?"

Surely it'd be so much more effective (and, last-not-least, also
*cost-effective*) to design the site flexibly? That might even
persuade some new visitors to stay, who aren't yet on your survey
list, but who arrived with next year's latest and greatest browsing
toy, whatever that may turn out to be.
Jul 24 '05 #227
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
However, you didn't answer the second question:


No I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer.
--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #228
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
Gee, I don't know. Let me think... Ask? So, who are you going to ask, and what question are you going to ask
them? Have you any idea what proportion of webnauts answer surveys,
and just how typical those are of the ones who don't answer?


Ok, so you dont like to listen to your visitors. No biggy. In the web
application development arena customer feedback including information
about browsers is very important.
Surely it'd be so much more effective (and, last-not-least, also
*cost-effective*) to design the site flexibly?


It depends on the site. EVERYTHING depends on the site. You can design
Flexibly (read that as generic) if you like. Others take time to listen.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #229
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Travis Newbury wrote:
Ok, so you dont like to listen to your visitors.
I presume you're already aware that I was going to resent that.

If one fraction of visitors tell me that I ought to take actions which
exclude some other fraction, then I'm afraid I don't want to know.
In the web application development arena customer feedback including
information about browsers is very important.
Sounds like a good principle, as a purely theoretical idea. Have you
been following the discussion of the commercial
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/planmyjourney/ versus the third-party
alternative gateway http://www.traintimes.org.uk/ ?
Surely it'd be so much more effective (and, last-not-least, also
*cost-effective*) to design the site flexibly?


It depends on the site.


You mean that deliberately excluding some fraction of your potential
readership is beneficial? Have you discussed this with TimBL at all?
EVERYTHING depends on the site. You can design Flexibly (read that
as generic) if you like. Others take time to listen.


Oh right, and so optimise the site for those who are already visiting
anyway, while continuing to exclude those who never got far enough to
comment. "Logisch".
Jul 24 '05 #230

"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
c.thornquist wrote:

An example is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

(W3.org's font size looks typical of a childrens book.)


That's funny, I find both the font family and size to be absolutely
perfect, since I'm getting my own browser default for both. :-)

If you don't like how your browser default font looks, then change it.
Just don't complain about it.


Wow, that's a "medium"? I have my default in IE set to medium. W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #231

"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
c.thornquist wrote:
Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%?
I certainly don't think that.


<snip>
Well, there's great population sample! Do you really think your teenagers
equate to most people?
No, I'll try to find the research. One thing I do know is that in a
capitalist society there's no shortage of market research. Knowing your
demographic & how they use their product means increased profit. I'm not
endorsing capitalism, but surely you know the research is being done.
There's probably research somewhere about it.
Does it really matter what the stats are for this? Screen sizes and
resolutions vary a great deal anyway, from 640×480 to 1600×1200 and
higher, and that's just for desktops.


Of course it matters what the stats are because I'm trying to reach the most
visitors. If I discover that 80% open their browsers to 100%, then I don't
want my text spreading 100%. I better use columns or blocks to contain it.

BTW, very few use 640x480, but 5 years ago I took them into account when
designing. Now I know they get the horizontal scroll bar. Very few use
1600x1200. Most use ... oh heck, here are the stats from The Counter:

Resolution StatsTue Feb 1 00:01:02 2005 - Tue Feb 8 15:58:00 2005 7.7 Days
1024 x 768 = 54%
800 x 600 = 28%
1280 x 1024 = 10%
1152 x 864 = 3%
Unknown = 2%
1600 x 1200 = 0%
640 x 480 = 0%

from: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php
Since it's the viewport size that matters, not the screen size, whether or
not users keep the browser maximised or not is meaningless.


What's the viewport size? The resolution? If it's meaningless, then why are
people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?

Carla


Jul 24 '05 #232
c.thornquist wrote:
"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Since it's the viewport size that matters, not the screen size, whether or
not users keep the browser maximised or not is meaningless.
What's the viewport size? The resolution?


The viewport is the part of the browser window where you can actually
see page content.

Even if you're using full-size windows at 1024x768 screen size, the
toolbars, status bars, sidebars and other browser UI parts take away
from the available space, so you may only have an 800x600 viewport.
If it's meaningless, then why are
people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?


Screen size only has meaning in that it sets the maximum browser window
size, nothing more. Window size is often less than screen size, viewport
size is always less than that.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #233
c.thornquist wrote:

W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?


I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately. :(

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #234
c.thornquist wrote:
"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@gmail.com> wrote
Since it's the viewport size that matters, not the screen size,
whether or not users keep the browser maximised or not is
meaningless.


What's the viewport size? The resolution? If it's meaningless, then
why are people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?


Since you can't reliably tell what the visitor's viewport size is, and
we've discussed to death around here that the monitor's resolution is
in fact meaningless, what does this have to do with suggesting a
stylesheet? Oh, for *your* browser? A *user* stylesheet? Well, if
you want to override author settings, you would use one.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #235
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
Ok, so you dont like to listen to your visitors.

I presume you're already aware that I was going to resent that.


Actually I didn't think you would resent that
EVERYTHING depends on the site. You can design Flexibly (read that
as generic) if you like. Others take time to listen.

Oh right, and so optimise the site for those who are already visiting
anyway..


No. Optimize the site for "likely" visitors, not "potential" there is
a huge difference between the two. A lot in this group seem to miss the
difference.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #236
> From: kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.html
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?

c.thornquist wrote:

W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?


I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately. :(

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Don't know the stats on this one but it could also be due to sites
specifying less than 100 percent or less than 1em sizes for almost all text
(bar headings). Perhaps you mean this sort of thing too?

I have had no luck or only very dubious and grudging support from clients
when I do not set the font sizes to be less than normal and "leave it to the
viewers" I held off one person for 29 days with arguments and actually going
and setting his browser preferences - but in the end, a terse instruction to
reduce the font sizes and that was that. I set .8 and .85 for things like
paras and he and his partners were very happy and, after being glum for a
while, I admit it looked more "standard" and when they paid I thought, who
can fight this epidemic? Is it an epidemic?

This is how I have been thinking (it is possibly inaccurate but corrections
are instructive...): It is sensible to set main text to be "normal" in css
(or not setting at all) unless there is a special reason. This special
reason, ideally, should not include "So many websites have such unnaturally
small fonts that browsers are now default factory set or user set to make
most such pages easily readable. Thus when a web designer uses normal fonts
they will appear unusually large. The standard of normality has shifted. In
other words, there is a feedback process that has corrupted what was so
usefully conceived by the scss standard to pay respect to the viewers
settings. A sort of inflationary effect on the currency has happened.
(Currencies can get replaced to remove absurdities, new notes with lower
numbers ... perhaps this sort of thing could happen with a later html
version? XHTML 5 or something is geared to make normal smaller than browser
settings. Thus web designers can use normal with confidence again. I do not
seriously propose this, just an idea...)

dorayme

Jul 24 '05 #237
in my last, "the scss standard" was a typo, should have been "the css
standard"...

dorayme

Jul 24 '05 #238

"dorayme" <do*****@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:BE7728B4.107F8%do*****@optusnet.com.au...
From: kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.html
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?

c.thornquist wrote:

W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites
use
fixed font sizes?


I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately. :(

--

So many websites have such unnaturally
small fonts that browsers are now default factory set or user set to make
most such pages easily readable. Thus when a web designer uses normal
fonts
they will appear unusually large.


<snip>

Maybe for those who have used the internet much longer than myself, the
average font size on sites today appears small. I've been using the www for
just 5 years. My sites usually have 12px or 11px (on older sites) Arial. I'm
going to try to stop using fixed sizes (unless I discover some reason why I
shouldn't switch).

I have visited sites with fonts so small I couldn't make out the text. If I
remember correctly, they were usually sites built entirely with FLASH. Maybe
the designer thinks small fonts look modern?

I understand why developers use mini fonts or pixel fonts, but they should
be used very sparingly and only in an image.

I'm 46 & need reading glasses, but still find that most sites have
appropriate font sizes. Another consideration is the vertical scroll. I try
to build sites that do not scroll on the opening page. Larger font sizes
take up more space. It's a balancing act when you put usability issues into
the mix. People don't like to scroll, so you try to keep the page tight.
It's not as if us designers are doing these things purely for aesthetics or
worse, for no purpose at all.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #239
c.thornquist wrote:

Another consideration is the vertical scroll. I try
to build sites that do not scroll on the opening page. Larger font sizes
take up more space. It's a balancing act when you put usability issues into
the mix. People don't like to scroll, so you try to keep the page tight.
There's no question that people don't like horizontal scrolling, but I
think vertical scrolling has been more or less accepted as "normal". I
believe even usability guru Neilsen now agrees with that. If you don't
think so, then can you cite a reference that supports your claim?

Reducing a font-size just so you can squeeze more into the viewport is
truly a wasted effort. First, you don't know how big the viewport will
be, so any guess as to a text scaling factor is just that - a guess,
which will probably be wrong in a lot of cases. Then there are those
visitors who can't read your chosen font-size. Some who need larger text
will zoom text and mess up your layout. Others who can't read it will
just go to another site that doesn't have such readability problems.
It's a no-win situation.

I don't dispute that putting important info at the top of the page is A
Good Thing, for both users and search engines, but reducing the
font-size is not the way to get it noticed.
It's not as if us designers are doing these things purely for aesthetics or
worse, for no purpose at all.


I think you might be a little naive. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #240

"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3b*************@individual.net...
c.thornquist wrote:

Another consideration is the vertical scroll. I try
to build sites that do not scroll on the opening page. Larger font sizes
take up more space. It's a balancing act when you put usability issues
into
the mix. People don't like to scroll, so you try to keep the page tight.
There's no question that people don't like horizontal scrolling, but I
think vertical scrolling has been more or less accepted as "normal". I
believe even usability guru Neilsen now agrees with that. If you don't
think so, then can you cite a reference that supports your claim?


I don't have a reference. I have read that you should keep scrolling to 3
windows or less. I expect to scroll on a site that is for news or reference,
but from a design point of view on the front page of a business site it
doesn't work. Your design is incomplete.
Reducing a font-size just so you can squeeze more into the viewport is
truly a wasted effort.
<snip>

From my point of view, since I try to keep scrolling off my front page, it's
not a wasted effort. I'm talking about IF I wanted 14px Arial versus an 11
or 12px. That extra size can make the vertical bar show up. I don't like the
look of large text anyway, so if some who want large fonts get the vertical
scroll bar, so be it.

I don't dispute that putting important info at the top of the page is A
Good Thing, for both users and search engines, but reducing the
font-size is not the way to get it noticed.
I don't reduce font size for much of anything. I settled on 12px Arial long
ago. What I will do is remove extraneous content from that first page.
Deeper pages scroll when necessary. And, now that I know IE won't let users
adjust their font sixe if its specified in CSS, I'll avoid specifying a size
with px.
It's not as if us designers are doing these things purely for aesthetics
or
worse, for no purpose at all.


I think you might be a little naive. ;)


Well, I try to be purposeful:)

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #241
c.thornquist wrote:

IF I wanted 14px Arial versus an 11
or 12px. That extra size can make the vertical bar show up. I don't like the
look of large text anyway,
You consider 14px Arial to be "large"? In my world, that's still pretty
small, considering my default font size is 20px.

11px equates to font-size:55%! Few can read text that small. I'm not one
of them.
And, now that I know IE won't let users
adjust their font sixe if its specified in CSS, I'll avoid specifying a size
with px.


This is A Good Thing. :) Just don't go the route a lot of other
designers and use something puny like .7em for body text. That's only
marginally better than using tiny px, IMO.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #242
kchayka wrote:
11px equates to font-size:55%! Few can read text that small. I'm not one
of them.


On most browsers' default settings, 11px equates to font-size: 70%.

http://www.reeddesign.co.uk/test/points-pixels.html

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

================================================== ====
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ks*****@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
================================================== ====
Jul 24 '05 #243
Kevin Scholl wrote:
On most browsers' default settings, 11px equates to font-size: 70%.


And on mine 11px = 7.8pt = 0.65em = 65%. Though I have a mimimum font
setting of 10pt anyway.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #244
laurence said the following on 08/06/2005 20:33:
I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?


How do you define "correctly"?

Valid HTML is not synonymous with decent HTML that will render the way
you expect it to. I could write some perfectly valid HTML that will look
like shit in even the most stringent browser.

Chances are *you've* done something strange.
--
Oli
Jul 24 '05 #245
I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
support the standards.

"Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVEsugapabl o.com...
Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.

Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".

So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?

Jul 24 '05 #246
laurence wrote:
I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.


Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 24 '05 #247
David Dorward wrote:
laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.


I appreciate your point a lot. Nice way to get it through :)

Best
A
Jul 24 '05 #248
David Dorward wrote:
laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.


That's a keeper.
--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #249
laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
support the standards.


You made the same assertion in another thread in this newsgroup.
However, when asked for the URL of the Web page that validates but
cannot be properly viewed via Mozilla, you refused.

It is indeed possible to write a valid HTML file that does not
display as intended. If you developed that buggy file while
viewing it with an equally buggy browser, you should not be
surprised if other browsers -- with fewer bugs -- don't display
them as you think they should.

I spent 41 years as a software engineer, most of that time doing
software testing. I saw many programs that compiled without error
that failed to produce required results. The programs had correct
syntax but faulty logic. That's not much different from an HTML
file that validates at W3C (correct syntax) but displays
incorrectly (incorrect logic).

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
Jul 24 '05 #250

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.